Two Questions for Atheists

[MaryL]

NPR calls them driveway moments on their pledge drives. I listen to NPR and I have drive way moments transfixed listening to Denis Preger just as well sometimes.

 

[BreezeWood]

I majored in psychology. You've still failed to explain what causes you to "feel good" as opposed to not feeling anything or feeling bad. I understand how chemistry in the brain works but it is triggered by something, the chemicals don't rationalize you need to "feel good" do they?

You know what else helps with depression? Spirituality!

Really? You majored in psychology, and you don't know about endorphins, serotonin, and neuropeptides? Really??? You should get your money back.

The only one being irrational is YOU. It's the rational position to embrace human spirituality which has been an intrinsic human behavioral attribute for the entire existence of our species civilization. You are among the outlying 5% who don't connect spiritually. An anomaly. A freak of nature.

Yet another person telling me that the rational position is to just accept the existence of a thing for which there is not a single shred of empirical, objective, verifiable evidence. Why do these theists keep trying to convince us that the irrational is actually rational?

I am becoming convinced that these people do not know what the word rational means. They really should quit using it.

.

Yet another person telling me that the rational position is to just accept the existence of a thing for which there is not a single shred of empirical, objective, verifiable evidence. Why do these theists keep trying to convince us that the irrational is actually rational?

physiology is the empirical evidence for a metaphysical presence responsible for its creation.

And how do you figure that?

.

And how do you figure that?

what is your explanation for where physiology originates, its configuration and physiology's ability to function.

the brain did not make itself nor does it speak.

Yeah, this is an old argument. "The human body is just too complex to have formed without a creator". You're not really going to make me demonstrate all of the ways that this is not at all a rational argument, are you? Not only is this not original, it's old, and trite.

.

Yeah, this is an old argument. "The human body is just too complex to have formed without a creator". You're not really going to make me demonstrate all of the ways that this is not at all a rational argument, are you? Not only is this not original, it's old, and trite.

without a creator ...

physiology is the empirical evidence for a metaphysical presence responsible for its creation.

you are really dense, short memory span is not a good sign for why you originally responded - physiology is the product of the metaphysical for its physical presence on planet Earth ... who is trite is who replays their stale, unimaginative and lazy mentality on a message board.

physiology does have a creator whether you like it or not.

 

[BreezeWood]

parking lot moments"

Really? You majored in psychology, and you don't know about endorphins, serotonin, and neuropeptides? Really??? You should get your money back.

Yet another person telling me that the rational position is to just accept the existence of a thing for which there is not a single shred of empirical, objective, verifiable evidence. Why do these theists keep trying to convince us that the irrational is actually rational?

I am becoming convinced that these people do not know what the word rational means. They really should quit using it.

.

Yet another person telling me that the rational position is to just accept the existence of a thing for which there is not a single shred of empirical, objective, verifiable evidence. Why do these theists keep trying to convince us that the irrational is actually rational?

physiology is the empirical evidence for a metaphysical presence responsible for its creation.

And how do you figure that?

.

And how do you figure that?

what is your explanation for where physiology originates, its configuration and physiology's ability to function.

the brain did not make itself nor does it speak.

Yeah, this is an old argument. "The human body is just too complex to have formed without a creator". You're not really going to make me demonstrate all of the ways that this is not at all a rational argument, are you? Not only is this not original, it's old, and trite.

So the human body is too complex to be a random creation. Why? Who made god then? He's/she pretty complex....

.

So the human body is too complex to be a random creation. Why? Who made god then? He's/she pretty complex....

So the human body is too complex to be a random creation ...

yes it is, you are confused and so any physiology is not random but designed, physiology does not exist without a life form it is created by its metaphysical presence - in your case the sapien that is distinct by the particular being (yourself) created.


Who made god then ...

the metaphysical came first, chicken or egg - the Almighty is the most superior among the many, the CEO.

 

[Czernobog]

Really? You majored in psychology, and you don't know about endorphins, serotonin, and neuropeptides? Really??? You should get your money back.

Yet another person telling me that the rational position is to just accept the existence of a thing for which there is not a single shred of empirical, objective, verifiable evidence. Why do these theists keep trying to convince us that the irrational is actually rational?

I am becoming convinced that these people do not know what the word rational means. They really should quit using it.

.

Yet another person telling me that the rational position is to just accept the existence of a thing for which there is not a single shred of empirical, objective, verifiable evidence. Why do these theists keep trying to convince us that the irrational is actually rational?

physiology is the empirical evidence for a metaphysical presence responsible for its creation.

And how do you figure that?

.

And how do you figure that?

what is your explanation for where physiology originates, its configuration and physiology's ability to function.

the brain did not make itself nor does it speak.

Yeah, this is an old argument. "The human body is just too complex to have formed without a creator". You're not really going to make me demonstrate all of the ways that this is not at all a rational argument, are you? Not only is this not original, it's old, and trite.

.

Yeah, this is an old argument. "The human body is just too complex to have formed without a creator". You're not really going to make me demonstrate all of the ways that this is not at all a rational argument, are you? Not only is this not original, it's old, and trite.

without a creator ...

physiology is the empirical evidence for a metaphysical presence responsible for its creation.

you are really dense, short memory span is not a good sign for why you originally responded - physiology is the product of the metaphysical for its physical presence on planet Earth ... who is trite is who replays their stale, unimaginative and lazy mentality on a message board.

physiology does have a creator whether you like it or not.

Because you deem it so? No.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

Because you deem it so? No.

physiology is the empirical evidence for a metaphysical presence responsible for its creation.

what is your explanation for where physiology originates, its configuration and physiology's ability to function.

the red is where you failed to respond - no physiology exists without a life form, the metaphysical that created it -

what is your explanation for physiology and where does it come from and why is it configured as a functioning assembly - by what.

 

[Czernobog]

parking lot moments"

.
physiology is the empirical evidence for a metaphysical presence responsible for its creation.

And how do you figure that?

.

And how do you figure that?

what is your explanation for where physiology originates, its configuration and physiology's ability to function.

the brain did not make itself nor does it speak.

Yeah, this is an old argument. "The human body is just too complex to have formed without a creator". You're not really going to make me demonstrate all of the ways that this is not at all a rational argument, are you? Not only is this not original, it's old, and trite.

So the human body is too complex to be a random creation. Why? Who made god then? He's/she pretty complex....

.

So the human body is too complex to be a random creation. Why? Who made god then? He's/she pretty complex....

So the human body is too complex to be a random creation ...

yes it is, you are confused and so any physiology is not random but designed, physiology does not exist without a life form it is created by its metaphysical presence - in your case the sapien that is distinct by the particular being (yourself) created.


Who made god then ...

the metaphysical came first, chicken or egg - the Almighty is the most superior among the many, the CEO.

So, we are the product of a very shoddy creator. After all the physiology of the human body is filled with flaws, and unnecessary parts. Your God is pretty flawed.

Not only does physiology not indicate a creator, but, due to the many flaws, and shortcomings of physiology, physiology actually infers the randomness of reality. Allergies, congenital defects, genetic flaws are just a few of the random flaws in the human body that suggests that there is no intelligent designer of the human body.

 

[Czernobog]

.

Because you deem it so? No.

physiology is the empirical evidence for a metaphysical presence responsible for its creation.

what is your explanation for where physiology originates, its configuration and physiology's ability to function.

the red is where you failed to respond - no physiology exists without a life form, the metaphysical that created it -

what is your explanation for physiology and where does it come from and why is it configured as a functioning assembly - by what.

What the fuck are you talking about?!? Physiology is the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and their parts, including all physical and chemical processes. How do you propose that one study living organism without...well..living organisms?!?!

What you're blathering is utter nonsense!

 

[BreezeWood]

parking lot moments"

And how do you figure that?

.

And how do you figure that?

what is your explanation for where physiology originates, its configuration and physiology's ability to function.

the brain did not make itself nor does it speak.

Yeah, this is an old argument. "The human body is just too complex to have formed without a creator". You're not really going to make me demonstrate all of the ways that this is not at all a rational argument, are you? Not only is this not original, it's old, and trite.

So the human body is too complex to be a random creation. Why? Who made god then? He's/she pretty complex....

.

So the human body is too complex to be a random creation. Why? Who made god then? He's/she pretty complex....

So the human body is too complex to be a random creation ...

yes it is, you are confused and so any physiology is not random but designed, physiology does not exist without a life form it is created by its metaphysical presence - in your case the sapien that is distinct by the particular being (yourself) created.


Who made god then ...

the metaphysical came first, chicken or egg - the Almighty is the most superior among the many, the CEO.

So, we are the product of a very shoddy creator. After all the physiology of the human body is filled with flaws, and unnecessary parts. Your God is pretty flawed.

.

So, we are the product of a very shoddy creator. After all the physiology of the human body is filled with flaws, and unnecessary parts. Your God is pretty flawed.

that may be correct the metaphysical proves not to be perfect as we are its example - the Almighty conquered evil - that is the perfection required to be set free in the Everlasting.

 

[BreezeWood]

parking lot moments"

And how do you figure that?

.

And how do you figure that?

what is your explanation for where physiology originates, its configuration and physiology's ability to function.

the brain did not make itself nor does it speak.

Yeah, this is an old argument. "The human body is just too complex to have formed without a creator". You're not really going to make me demonstrate all of the ways that this is not at all a rational argument, are you? Not only is this not original, it's old, and trite.

So the human body is too complex to be a random creation. Why? Who made god then? He's/she pretty complex....

.

So the human body is too complex to be a random creation. Why? Who made god then? He's/she pretty complex....

So the human body is too complex to be a random creation ...

yes it is, you are confused and so any physiology is not random but designed, physiology does not exist without a life form it is created by its metaphysical presence - in your case the sapien that is distinct by the particular being (yourself) created.


Who made god then ...

the metaphysical came first, chicken or egg - the Almighty is the most superior among the many, the CEO.

So, we are the product of a very shoddy creator. After all the physiology of the human body is filled with flaws, and unnecessary parts. Your God is pretty flawed.

Not only does physiology not indicate a creator, but, due to the many flaws, and shortcomings of physiology, physiology actually infers the randomness of reality. Allergies, congenital defects, genetic flaws are just a few of the random flaws in the human body that suggests that there is no intelligent designer of the human body.

.

Not only does physiology not indicate a creator, but, due to the many flaws, and shortcomings of physiology, physiology actually infers the randomness of reality. Allergies, congenital defects, genetic flaws are just a few of the random flaws in the human body that suggests that there is no intelligent designer of the human body.

the above was added after my response -

the metaphysical has done wonders from beginning with the first primitive life, original template to modern physiology no one is claiming perfection of the physical you are refering to the desert religions, or better you are stuck on them.

What the fuck are you talking about?!? Physiology is the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and their parts, including all physical and chemical processes. How do you propose that one study living organism without...well..living organisms?!?!

your response is what makes no sense ...

what is your explanation for where physiology originates, its configuration and physiology's ability to function.

I'll be more simple for you, where does tissue (body) come from ... * the brain is an organ, where this conversation began - what created your brain ... how is it the dominate factor it is an empty vessel.

physiology is the empirical evidence for a metaphysical presence responsible for its creation.

the above was my response to your brain theory.

 

[Boss]

Really? The "Soul"? You have obviously never studied the brain, psychology, or neurology. "Feeling good" isn't a function of "the soul". It is a function of brain chemistry. You know, kinda like how chocolate has been demonstrated to help with depression, and demonstrated, chemically, and neurologically why it helps.

I majored in psychology. You've still failed to explain what causes you to "feel good" as opposed to not feeling anything or feeling bad. I understand how chemistry in the brain works but it is triggered by something, the chemicals don't rationalize you need to "feel good" do they?

You know what else helps with depression? Spirituality!

Really? You majored in psychology, and you don't know about endorphins, serotonin, and neuropeptides? Really??? You should get your money back.

Wow, it takes a real mental retard to defeat your own dumb argument but you just pulled it off! You originally stated that you do good things "simply because it feels better than being an asshole." Now, you admit that it's because of the reward of an endorphin fix! Has nothing to do with not being an asshole... it's merely chemistry! Bravo!

You're still missing my point. The chemicals in your brain, which are released to make you feel good, are not what causes you to do good. They are a byproduct of your doing good. If you were 6-years-old, you might argue that gasoline makes a car go, but that's not entirely correct. Gasoline is simply a fuel the car uses, it takes a person cranking the car and driving it for the car to go. The same is true for chemicals in your brain, they have no controlling power over whether you choose to do good or bad.

Yup. I mock irrational behaviour pretending to be rational, and daring to say, suggest, or imply that being irrational is superior to being rational. I make no apologies for that. Hey. At least I don't threaten the people who disagree with me with an eternity of pain, and suffering. Again, I will consider the source, and give that all, of the consideration it deserves.

The only one being irrational is YOU. It's the rational position to embrace human spirituality which has been an intrinsic human behavioral attribute for the entire existence of our species civilization. You are among the outlying 5% who don't connect spiritually. An anomaly. A freak of nature.

Yet another person telling me that the rational position is to just accept the existence of a thing for which there is not a single shred of empirical, objective, verifiable evidence. Why do these theists keep trying to convince us that the irrational is actually rational?

I am becoming convinced that these people do not know what the word rational means. They really should quit using it.

There's plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it. How can a spiritual entity have physical evidence and still remain spiritual? It's a dichotomy. IF there were clear physical evidence for God, then God would not be spiritual... God would be physical. So when we are rationalizing existence of God (a spiritual entity), it is crucial to consider there isn't going to be apparent physical evidence. This doesn't mean there is NO evidence. Again, YOU are the one who is being totally irrational by expecting physical evidence for a spiritual entity.

Nevertheless, there is some circumstantial physical evidence for God. The biggest piece of evidence would be logic. It's not possible for physical nature to have created itself. Granted, scientists have concocted all kinds of wild theories but the fact remains, it defies physics for physics to have created itself from nothing. You can't explain what caused the Big Bang or how it is even scientifically feasible to have a so-called "singularity" which totally contradicts Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Another bit of evidence is the presence and persistence of human spirituality for the entirety of our species existence. Every animal we've ever studied in science has never had unexplained and meaningless behavioral attributes. This doesn't exist in nature anywhere. Yet, you claim that to be the case with human spirituality. A salmon swims upstream for a reason and it's not because it's grappling with it's own mortality or out of fear of the unknown. There is a fundamental reason for the behavior or it wouldn't exist.

But the overwhelming majority of evidence for God is spiritual evidence, which you refuse to accept. Literally trillions of human beings have testified to their profound beliefs in God, in one incarnation or another. Billions of testimonials of what God has provided to them in their lives, countless miracles and prayers answered. You simply dismiss all of it as "nonsense" and continue to be blindly ignorant.

Then you come to threads like this, expecting that we are somehow going to prove to you that God exists. Sorry, I don't believe that is going to happen.

 

[Czernobog]

I'll be more simple for you, where does tissue (body) come from ... * the brain is an organ, where this conversation began - what created your brain ... how is it the dominate factor it is an empty vessel.

If you're asking what I think you are asking - "how is tissue formed"? This would be achieved by multiple cells that are organized communities of cells that work together to carry out a specific function. That's how tissue is formed. Now, if you are asking how those individual cells come into being, the answer is, "I don't know," Guess what,' "I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it". It didn't when we didn't know how volcanoes worked. It didn't when we didn't know why it rained. It didn't when we didn't know what caused earthquakes. It didn't when we didn't know what caused lightning. And it doesn't here. All "I don't know" means is "I don't know".

So, no. Physiology does not prove the existence of some mythical creator.

 

[Czernobog]

Really? The "Soul"? You have obviously never studied the brain, psychology, or neurology. "Feeling good" isn't a function of "the soul". It is a function of brain chemistry. You know, kinda like how chocolate has been demonstrated to help with depression, and demonstrated, chemically, and neurologically why it helps.

I majored in psychology. You've still failed to explain what causes you to "feel good" as opposed to not feeling anything or feeling bad. I understand how chemistry in the brain works but it is triggered by something, the chemicals don't rationalize you need to "feel good" do they?

You know what else helps with depression? Spirituality!

Really? You majored in psychology, and you don't know about endorphins, serotonin, and neuropeptides? Really??? You should get your money back.

Wow, it takes a real mental retard to defeat your own dumb argument but you just pulled it off! You originally stated that you do good things "simply because it feels better than being an asshole." Now, you admit that it's because of the reward of an endorphin fix! Has nothing to do with not being an asshole... it's merely chemistry! Bravo!

You're still missing my point. The chemicals in your brain, which are released to make you feel good, are not what causes you to do good. They are a byproduct of your doing good. If you were 6-years-old, you might argue that gasoline makes a car go, but that's not entirely correct. Gasoline is simply a fuel the car uses, it takes a person cranking the car and driving it for the car to go. The same is true for chemicals in your brain, they have no controlling power over whether you choose to do good or bad

Okay. You majored in psychology, my ass. Otherwise you would have been aware of something as simple as positive reinforcement. By all means, prove that you didn't really major in psychology by questioning what positive reinforcement has to do with chemicals being released to make you feel good, when you do good.

There's plenty of evidence,

I'm gonna stop you right there. You're right there is plenty of subjective, unverifiable, anecdotal evidence of the existence of divinity. Apparently you are having a hard tie comprehending that I am looking for objective, quantifiable, verifiable evidence, of which I've yet to see any presented..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe you need to behave well out of fear (which is not actually morality, completely undermining that nonsense), but most people behave well because they honor reason-based morality and ethics.

The problem with "reason-based" morality and ethics is that it often leads to atrocity. Hitler reasoned it was moral and ethical to exterminate 7 million Jews. Margaret Sanger and others reasoned eugenics was morally and ethically right. Many people today have no problem reasoning it's okay to kill little babies in the womb.

So you'll say, well okay, it's "community-based" reasoning.... but we live in a nation where 75% of the population have Judeo-Christian values, why aren't we adhering to their standards of morality and ethics?

When you do not have accountability for your reasoning in what is moral and ethical, it can take any form you, as a human, can rationalize. In other words, it's absolutely subjective and meaningless.

That's not a problem unique to reason-based morality, so I completely reject your covenient and incorrect characterization.

And reason-based morality is far superior to your "guiding spiritual light" nonsense, as you are merely employing reason-based morality, but with only half the reason.

Again... you must be misunderstanding my purpose in this thread. You seem to think this is about you. That I am somehow compelled to convince you, and failing that, I have failed to accomplish my objective. I'm not here to convince you and don't really give two shits what you reject.

I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature. You cannot compare what you don't believe in. What you're attempting to do is to be antagonistic. btw.. you failed.

" You seem to think this is about you. "

Oddly, as said in response to a two-sentence post, each one directly addressing your ideas. You are one odd guy, Boss. I have not assumed you are compelled to convince me, nor have I asked you to convince me of anything. Another creation, out of thin air, by you. I have responded to your ideas with my own thoughts of why they are nonsensical. And, along the way, I have pointed out your little cons and tricks, all of which older than dirt.

"I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature."

Yes, you got me there, it's "Just my opinion". Deep, man. Yes, that's right Boss, it's my opinion that reason-based morality is superior, and I have said exactly why I think that. And, no, I don't have to try your nuttery out for 5 years or even 5 minutes to correctly think that.

Well, no... actually you never stated why. You simply waddled in and proclaimed that you were rejecting my argument and declared it to be nonsensical. I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective. Humans reason all sorts of things as morally right when they are anything but. I gave you a few examples of that. When you rely on reasoning for your morals it simply means your morals are based on your own self-serving interests.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems facing Atheism. There is no moral accountability. Moral relativism is responsible for the fall of many great civilizations. You can sit here and defiantly reject everything I say and pretend you've addressed my points but you cannot prove "reason-based" morality is superior to anything. Where in history are all the great Atheist civilizations? That's right, they do not exist!

"I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective."

And magical bullshit isn't? haha, you are tripping over yourself. you have bad habit of trying to ascribe qualities to others or to their ideas which more appropriately apply to your own. And this is one of those times.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored in reason or fact. Then you have the arrogance to argue to this hilarious nonsense as some sort of authority? That's something I might expect from a guy on a corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn.


And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective. Premises may be subjective, but reasoning follows well-defined laws. And the "subjectivity" of premises comes in degrees (ignoring "degrees of subjectivity" is your specialty, after all). How varying would the simple, rational responses be to the question, "Should the objective well-being of all humans matter?" Not much.

Now, ask the same question ONLY to people whose minds are infused with magical bullshit,. like the kind you are peddling. Every one of them, to a man, would have to pause to check their "authoritative, magical code" before answering such a simple question. "What would Jaysus say?... okay, that's my answer". And if they don't do that, then they are deferring to reason-based morality instead of their magical bullshit .... as they should.

No, friend, your bullshit carries mountains more subjectivity than do reason based morals, as they start from premises and reach conclusions, following well-defined rules. They force us to agree on a few basic, humanistic principles, then build on them. ... your embarrassing bullshit starts from "absolute truths!!!" and works backwards, with the outcome of the debate already decided by whatever moral defect lies in your brain or in your stupid religion..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Really? The "Soul"? You have obviously never studied the brain, psychology, or neurology. "Feeling good" isn't a function of "the soul". It is a function of brain chemistry. You know, kinda like how chocolate has been demonstrated to help with depression, and demonstrated, chemically, and neurologically why it helps.

I majored in psychology. You've still failed to explain what causes you to "feel good" as opposed to not feeling anything or feeling bad. I understand how chemistry in the brain works but it is triggered by something, the chemicals don't rationalize you need to "feel good" do they?

You know what else helps with depression? Spirituality!

Really? You majored in psychology, and you don't know about endorphins, serotonin, and neuropeptides? Really??? You should get your money back.

Wow, it takes a real mental retard to defeat your own dumb argument but you just pulled it off! You originally stated that you do good things "simply because it feels better than being an asshole." Now, you admit that it's because of the reward of an endorphin fix! Has nothing to do with not being an asshole... it's merely chemistry! Bravo!

You're still missing my point. The chemicals in your brain, which are released to make you feel good, are not what causes you to do good. They are a byproduct of your doing good. If you were 6-years-old, you might argue that gasoline makes a car go, but that's not entirely correct. Gasoline is simply a fuel the car uses, it takes a person cranking the car and driving it for the car to go. The same is true for chemicals in your brain, they have no controlling power over whether you choose to do good or bad.

Yup. I mock irrational behaviour pretending to be rational, and daring to say, suggest, or imply that being irrational is superior to being rational. I make no apologies for that. Hey. At least I don't threaten the people who disagree with me with an eternity of pain, and suffering. Again, I will consider the source, and give that all, of the consideration it deserves.

The only one being irrational is YOU. It's the rational position to embrace human spirituality which has been an intrinsic human behavioral attribute for the entire existence of our species civilization. You are among the outlying 5% who don't connect spiritually. An anomaly. A freak of nature.

Yet another person telling me that the rational position is to just accept the existence of a thing for which there is not a single shred of empirical, objective, verifiable evidence. Why do these theists keep trying to convince us that the irrational is actually rational?

I am becoming convinced that these people do not know what the word rational means. They really should quit using it.

There's plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it. How can a spiritual entity have physical evidence and still remain spiritual? It's a dichotomy. IF there were clear physical evidence for God, then God would not be spiritual... God would be physical. So when we are rationalizing existence of God (a spiritual entity), it is crucial to consider there isn't going to be apparent physical evidence. This doesn't mean there is NO evidence. Again, YOU are the one who is being totally irrational by expecting physical evidence for a spiritual entity.

Nevertheless, there is some circumstantial physical evidence for God. The biggest piece of evidence would be logic. It's not possible for physical nature to have created itself. Granted, scientists have concocted all kinds of wild theories but the fact remains, it defies physics for physics to have created itself from nothing. You can't explain what caused the Big Bang or how it is even scientifically feasible to have a so-called "singularity" which totally contradicts Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Another bit of evidence is the presence and persistence of human spirituality for the entirety of our species existence. Every animal we've ever studied in science has never had unexplained and meaningless behavioral attributes. This doesn't exist in nature anywhere. Yet, you claim that to be the case with human spirituality. A salmon swims upstream for a reason and it's not because it's grappling with it's own mortality or out of fear of the unknown. There is a fundamental reason for the behavior or it wouldn't exist.

But the overwhelming majority of evidence for God is spiritual evidence, which you refuse to accept. Literally trillions of human beings have testified to their profound beliefs in God, in one incarnation or another. Billions of testimonials of what God has provided to them in their lives, countless miracles and prayers answered. You simply dismiss all of it as "nonsense" and continue to be blindly ignorant.

Then you come to threads like this, expecting that we are somehow going to prove to you that God exists. Sorry, I don't believe that is going to happen.

"There's plenty of evidence,"

False. There is no evidence. Not a shred. That is why you can't present any, and neither can nobody else. At this point, I honestly think you believe that saying "I have evidence!!!" over and over actually does mean you have evidence. In that case, I think I will say,. " I have a trillion dollars!" over and over. Maybe it will suddenly be true? Nope...

 

[Czernobog]

Really? The "Soul"? You have obviously never studied the brain, psychology, or neurology. "Feeling good" isn't a function of "the soul". It is a function of brain chemistry. You know, kinda like how chocolate has been demonstrated to help with depression, and demonstrated, chemically, and neurologically why it helps.

I majored in psychology. You've still failed to explain what causes you to "feel good" as opposed to not feeling anything or feeling bad. I understand how chemistry in the brain works but it is triggered by something, the chemicals don't rationalize you need to "feel good" do they?

You know what else helps with depression? Spirituality!

Really? You majored in psychology, and you don't know about endorphins, serotonin, and neuropeptides? Really??? You should get your money back.

Wow, it takes a real mental retard to defeat your own dumb argument but you just pulled it off! You originally stated that you do good things "simply because it feels better than being an asshole." Now, you admit that it's because of the reward of an endorphin fix! Has nothing to do with not being an asshole... it's merely chemistry! Bravo!

You're still missing my point. The chemicals in your brain, which are released to make you feel good, are not what causes you to do good. They are a byproduct of your doing good. If you were 6-years-old, you might argue that gasoline makes a car go, but that's not entirely correct. Gasoline is simply a fuel the car uses, it takes a person cranking the car and driving it for the car to go. The same is true for chemicals in your brain, they have no controlling power over whether you choose to do good or bad.

Yup. I mock irrational behaviour pretending to be rational, and daring to say, suggest, or imply that being irrational is superior to being rational. I make no apologies for that. Hey. At least I don't threaten the people who disagree with me with an eternity of pain, and suffering. Again, I will consider the source, and give that all, of the consideration it deserves.

The only one being irrational is YOU. It's the rational position to embrace human spirituality which has been an intrinsic human behavioral attribute for the entire existence of our species civilization. You are among the outlying 5% who don't connect spiritually. An anomaly. A freak of nature.

Yet another person telling me that the rational position is to just accept the existence of a thing for which there is not a single shred of empirical, objective, verifiable evidence. Why do these theists keep trying to convince us that the irrational is actually rational?

I am becoming convinced that these people do not know what the word rational means. They really should quit using it.

There's plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it. How can a spiritual entity have physical evidence and still remain spiritual? It's a dichotomy. IF there were clear physical evidence for God, then God would not be spiritual... God would be physical. So when we are rationalizing existence of God (a spiritual entity), it is crucial to consider there isn't going to be apparent physical evidence. This doesn't mean there is NO evidence. Again, YOU are the one who is being totally irrational by expecting physical evidence for a spiritual entity.

Nevertheless, there is some circumstantial physical evidence for God. The biggest piece of evidence would be logic. It's not possible for physical nature to have created itself. Granted, scientists have concocted all kinds of wild theories but the fact remains, it defies physics for physics to have created itself from nothing. You can't explain what caused the Big Bang or how it is even scientifically feasible to have a so-called "singularity" which totally contradicts Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Another bit of evidence is the presence and persistence of human spirituality for the entirety of our species existence. Every animal we've ever studied in science has never had unexplained and meaningless behavioral attributes. This doesn't exist in nature anywhere. Yet, you claim that to be the case with human spirituality. A salmon swims upstream for a reason and it's not because it's grappling with it's own mortality or out of fear of the unknown. There is a fundamental reason for the behavior or it wouldn't exist.

But the overwhelming majority of evidence for God is spiritual evidence, which you refuse to accept. Literally trillions of human beings have testified to their profound beliefs in God, in one incarnation or another. Billions of testimonials of what God has provided to them in their lives, countless miracles and prayers answered. You simply dismiss all of it as "nonsense" and continue to be blindly ignorant.

Then you come to threads like this, expecting that we are somehow going to prove to you that God exists. Sorry, I don't believe that is going to happen.

"There's plenty of evidence,"

False. There is no evidence. Not a shred. That is why you can't present any, and neither can nobody else. At this point, I honestly think you believe that saying "I have evidence!!!" over and over actually does mean you have evidence. In that case, I think I will say,. " I have a trillion dollars!" over and over. Maybe it will suddenly be true? Nope...

That's not true. There is a plethora of evidence. The problem is it is subjective, unverifiable, anecdotal evidence.

"I was sick, and had a cancerous tumour. I prayed, and my pastor, and church prayed over me, and the tumour vanished! Praise God!" This is "evidence". However it is extremely subjective, anecdotal, and without access to medical records, unverifiable. But it is evidence. However, I have made it clear all along that I am looking for objective, verifiable, quantifiable evidence. Of that there is none.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Really? The "Soul"? You have obviously never studied the brain, psychology, or neurology. "Feeling good" isn't a function of "the soul". It is a function of brain chemistry. You know, kinda like how chocolate has been demonstrated to help with depression, and demonstrated, chemically, and neurologically why it helps.

I majored in psychology. You've still failed to explain what causes you to "feel good" as opposed to not feeling anything or feeling bad. I understand how chemistry in the brain works but it is triggered by something, the chemicals don't rationalize you need to "feel good" do they?

You know what else helps with depression? Spirituality!

Really? You majored in psychology, and you don't know about endorphins, serotonin, and neuropeptides? Really??? You should get your money back.

Wow, it takes a real mental retard to defeat your own dumb argument but you just pulled it off! You originally stated that you do good things "simply because it feels better than being an asshole." Now, you admit that it's because of the reward of an endorphin fix! Has nothing to do with not being an asshole... it's merely chemistry! Bravo!

You're still missing my point. The chemicals in your brain, which are released to make you feel good, are not what causes you to do good. They are a byproduct of your doing good. If you were 6-years-old, you might argue that gasoline makes a car go, but that's not entirely correct. Gasoline is simply a fuel the car uses, it takes a person cranking the car and driving it for the car to go. The same is true for chemicals in your brain, they have no controlling power over whether you choose to do good or bad.

Yup. I mock irrational behaviour pretending to be rational, and daring to say, suggest, or imply that being irrational is superior to being rational. I make no apologies for that. Hey. At least I don't threaten the people who disagree with me with an eternity of pain, and suffering. Again, I will consider the source, and give that all, of the consideration it deserves.

The only one being irrational is YOU. It's the rational position to embrace human spirituality which has been an intrinsic human behavioral attribute for the entire existence of our species civilization. You are among the outlying 5% who don't connect spiritually. An anomaly. A freak of nature.

Yet another person telling me that the rational position is to just accept the existence of a thing for which there is not a single shred of empirical, objective, verifiable evidence. Why do these theists keep trying to convince us that the irrational is actually rational?

I am becoming convinced that these people do not know what the word rational means. They really should quit using it.

There's plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it. How can a spiritual entity have physical evidence and still remain spiritual? It's a dichotomy. IF there were clear physical evidence for God, then God would not be spiritual... God would be physical. So when we are rationalizing existence of God (a spiritual entity), it is crucial to consider there isn't going to be apparent physical evidence. This doesn't mean there is NO evidence. Again, YOU are the one who is being totally irrational by expecting physical evidence for a spiritual entity.

Nevertheless, there is some circumstantial physical evidence for God. The biggest piece of evidence would be logic. It's not possible for physical nature to have created itself. Granted, scientists have concocted all kinds of wild theories but the fact remains, it defies physics for physics to have created itself from nothing. You can't explain what caused the Big Bang or how it is even scientifically feasible to have a so-called "singularity" which totally contradicts Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Another bit of evidence is the presence and persistence of human spirituality for the entirety of our species existence. Every animal we've ever studied in science has never had unexplained and meaningless behavioral attributes. This doesn't exist in nature anywhere. Yet, you claim that to be the case with human spirituality. A salmon swims upstream for a reason and it's not because it's grappling with it's own mortality or out of fear of the unknown. There is a fundamental reason for the behavior or it wouldn't exist.

But the overwhelming majority of evidence for God is spiritual evidence, which you refuse to accept. Literally trillions of human beings have testified to their profound beliefs in God, in one incarnation or another. Billions of testimonials of what God has provided to them in their lives, countless miracles and prayers answered. You simply dismiss all of it as "nonsense" and continue to be blindly ignorant.

Then you come to threads like this, expecting that we are somehow going to prove to you that God exists. Sorry, I don't believe that is going to happen.

"There's plenty of evidence,"

False. There is no evidence. Not a shred. That is why you can't present any, and neither can nobody else. At this point, I honestly think you believe that saying "I have evidence!!!" over and over actually does mean you have evidence. In that case, I think I will say,. " I have a trillion dollars!" over and over. Maybe it will suddenly be true? Nope...

That's not true. There is a plethora of evidence the problem is it is subjective, unverifiable, anecdotal evidence.

"I was sick, and had a cancerous tumour. I prayed, and my pastor, and church prayed over me, and the tumour vanished! Praise God!" This is "evidence". However it is extremely subjective, anecdotal, and without acce3ss to medical records, unverifiable. But it is evidence. However, I have made it clear all along that I am looking for objective, verifiable, quantifiable evidence. Of that there is none.

"There is a plethora of evidence the problem is it is subjective, unverifiable, anecdotal evidence."

Which is not evidence. We may use the word "evidence" and qualify it with those words out of semantic convention, but, in empiricism, none of those things are actually evidence. And, considering the question is not a subjective one, like, "Do apples taste good?", then none of those things can actually be considered evidence.

We're basically saying the same thing.

Kind of like calling something, 'bad evidence". Well, if it is "bad evidence", it's not actually evidence at all, now is it?

 

[Czernobog]

I majored in psychology. You've still failed to explain what causes you to "feel good" as opposed to not feeling anything or feeling bad. I understand how chemistry in the brain works but it is triggered by something, the chemicals don't rationalize you need to "feel good" do they?

You know what else helps with depression? Spirituality!

Really? You majored in psychology, and you don't know about endorphins, serotonin, and neuropeptides? Really??? You should get your money back.

Wow, it takes a real mental retard to defeat your own dumb argument but you just pulled it off! You originally stated that you do good things "simply because it feels better than being an asshole." Now, you admit that it's because of the reward of an endorphin fix! Has nothing to do with not being an asshole... it's merely chemistry! Bravo!

You're still missing my point. The chemicals in your brain, which are released to make you feel good, are not what causes you to do good. They are a byproduct of your doing good. If you were 6-years-old, you might argue that gasoline makes a car go, but that's not entirely correct. Gasoline is simply a fuel the car uses, it takes a person cranking the car and driving it for the car to go. The same is true for chemicals in your brain, they have no controlling power over whether you choose to do good or bad.

The only one being irrational is YOU. It's the rational position to embrace human spirituality which has been an intrinsic human behavioral attribute for the entire existence of our species civilization. You are among the outlying 5% who don't connect spiritually. An anomaly. A freak of nature.

Yet another person telling me that the rational position is to just accept the existence of a thing for which there is not a single shred of empirical, objective, verifiable evidence. Why do these theists keep trying to convince us that the irrational is actually rational?

I am becoming convinced that these people do not know what the word rational means. They really should quit using it.

There's plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it. How can a spiritual entity have physical evidence and still remain spiritual? It's a dichotomy. IF there were clear physical evidence for God, then God would not be spiritual... God would be physical. So when we are rationalizing existence of God (a spiritual entity), it is crucial to consider there isn't going to be apparent physical evidence. This doesn't mean there is NO evidence. Again, YOU are the one who is being totally irrational by expecting physical evidence for a spiritual entity.

Nevertheless, there is some circumstantial physical evidence for God. The biggest piece of evidence would be logic. It's not possible for physical nature to have created itself. Granted, scientists have concocted all kinds of wild theories but the fact remains, it defies physics for physics to have created itself from nothing. You can't explain what caused the Big Bang or how it is even scientifically feasible to have a so-called "singularity" which totally contradicts Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Another bit of evidence is the presence and persistence of human spirituality for the entirety of our species existence. Every animal we've ever studied in science has never had unexplained and meaningless behavioral attributes. This doesn't exist in nature anywhere. Yet, you claim that to be the case with human spirituality. A salmon swims upstream for a reason and it's not because it's grappling with it's own mortality or out of fear of the unknown. There is a fundamental reason for the behavior or it wouldn't exist.

But the overwhelming majority of evidence for God is spiritual evidence, which you refuse to accept. Literally trillions of human beings have testified to their profound beliefs in God, in one incarnation or another. Billions of testimonials of what God has provided to them in their lives, countless miracles and prayers answered. You simply dismiss all of it as "nonsense" and continue to be blindly ignorant.

Then you come to threads like this, expecting that we are somehow going to prove to you that God exists. Sorry, I don't believe that is going to happen.

"There's plenty of evidence,"

False. There is no evidence. Not a shred. That is why you can't present any, and neither can nobody else. At this point, I honestly think you believe that saying "I have evidence!!!" over and over actually does mean you have evidence. In that case, I think I will say,. " I have a trillion dollars!" over and over. Maybe it will suddenly be true? Nope...

That's not true. There is a plethora of evidence the problem is it is subjective, unverifiable, anecdotal evidence.

"I was sick, and had a cancerous tumour. I prayed, and my pastor, and church prayed over me, and the tumour vanished! Praise God!" This is "evidence". However it is extremely subjective, anecdotal, and without acce3ss to medical records, unverifiable. But it is evidence. However, I have made it clear all along that I am looking for objective, verifiable, quantifiable evidence. Of that there is none.

"There is a plethora of evidence the problem is it is subjective, unverifiable, anecdotal evidence."

Which is not evidence. We may use the word "evidence" and qualify it with those words out of semantic convention, but, in empiricism, none of those things are actually evidence. And, considering the question is not a subjective one, like, "Do apples taste good?", then none of those things can actually be considered evidence.

We're basically saying the same thing.

Well...yeah, at this point we're just playing semantics...

 

[BreezeWood]

I'll be more simple for you, where does tissue (body) come from ... * the brain is an organ, where this conversation began - what created your brain ... how is it the dominate factor it is an empty vessel.

If you're asking what I think you are asking - "how is tissue formed"? This would be achieved by multiple cells that are organized communities of cells that work together to carry out a specific function. That's how tissue is formed. Now, if you are asking how those individual cells come into being, the answer is, "I don't know," Guess what,' "I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it". It didn't when we didn't know how volcanoes worked. It didn't when we didn't know why it rained. It didn't when we didn't know what caused earthquakes. It didn't when we didn't know what caused lightning. And it doesn't here. All "I don't know" means is "I don't know".

So, no. Physiology does not prove the existence of some mythical creator.

.

"I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it".

"I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it".

what is being conveyed is the metaphysical source of life creates the physiology to provide a physical presence for its existence. that existence has parameters for whatever reason that dictates an Almighty overseer to maintain the health of the process that apparently would otherwise possibly self destruct through error and omission.

the original template for life may or may not be related to the creation of the universe.

 

[BreezeWood]

Okay. You majored in psychology, my ass.

- it might be noted, Czernobog is said to be a psychiatrist ...

 

[Czernobog]

I'll be more simple for you, where does tissue (body) come from ... * the brain is an organ, where this conversation began - what created your brain ... how is it the dominate factor it is an empty vessel.

If you're asking what I think you are asking - "how is tissue formed"? This would be achieved by multiple cells that are organized communities of cells that work together to carry out a specific function. That's how tissue is formed. Now, if you are asking how those individual cells come into being, the answer is, "I don't know," Guess what,' "I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it". It didn't when we didn't know how volcanoes worked. It didn't when we didn't know why it rained. It didn't when we didn't know what caused earthquakes. It didn't when we didn't know what caused lightning. And it doesn't here. All "I don't know" means is "I don't know".

So, no. Physiology does not prove the existence of some mythical creator.

.

"I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it".

"I don't know" doesn't automatically dictate "God did it".

what is being conveyed is the metaphysical source of life creates the physiology to provide a physical presence for its existence. that existence has parameters for whatever reason that dictates an Almighty overseer to maintain the health of the process that apparently would otherwise possibly self destruct through error and omission.

the original template for life may or may not be related to the creation of the universe.

That's a beautiful belief. But, sans any actual objective, verifiable evidence, it's just that. Your belief. What you are presenting is a circular argument.

Physiology (the development of cells) occurs as a function of the metaphysical source of life (for which there is no evidence), thus the development of cells is evidence of the metaphysical source of Life.

You get how that logical fallacy eats itself, right?